If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse

No announcement yet.

New Study prove Fukushima caused byearthquake in the first minutes not the tsunami

this is the same why they don't use the nuclear bomb against germany back in 1945 because german towns are made by stone and stone do not burn.
they prefer to use it against Japanese towns because they are made of wood means it burns.
just watch the stone churches in Japanese after the nuclear bomb the stone are still there.
thats the same in Fukusima a nuclear explosion do not mean strong explosion for example the Father of all bombs is stronger than a smal nuke.

the simple answer is: the explosion was not strong enav to vapourise the building but yes stupid people like you think nuclear bombs are always explosion like "Tsar" fusion bombs

sure with a Tsar your effect shows up. but its a fusion bomb not a atom split bomb.

ok for stupid people need pictures here the Hiroshima church after the nuclear bomb:

why the church is not molten glas on the flor ? o yes you are an expert i know it my picture is a fake LOL.

No, that building is still there. It is now the Hiroshima monument. Why is it still there? I point you to the film Armageddon for a fine example of basic explosive dynamics. In one of the scenes where they are discussing the best method to destroy the meteor, one of the scientists uses the analogy of a firecracker. Place it on your hand, you get a nasty burn. Hold it in your hand, it'll blow your hand off!

The same principle applies to buildings. Have an explosion on the outside of a building, it isn't contained, so the energy release dissipates. Inside the building, it is contained and causes much more damage. If this was a nuclear explosion, as you wish to think, then the reactor would not be there any more, neither would the reactor building. It was a hydrogen explosion, nothing more, despite what you would like it to be.

"this is just wrong the AP1000 is not save the first 72hours because the passiv cooling solution can not backup the first 32minutes." I can't see anything on the wiki page about this claim. Wikipedia does say this: "In the AP1000, Westinghouse's Passive Core Cooling System uses multiple explosively-operated and DC operated valves which must operate within the first 30 minutes. This is designed to happen even if the reactor operators take no action."

"sure you are Biased if you are not a nuclear fanboy LOL!!! what a irony!" No, don't try and twist my posts to suit your own agenda. I just stated that they were not writing objectively.

Face it, you don't know what you're talking about and are relying on questionable, and to some extent, ignorant, sources to get your information. I'm relying on knowledgeable, peer reviewed, sources. Scientific and engineering publications that don't rely on the emotional and unfounded accusations of ignorant people.

But, yet again, any discussion with you has turned into name calling and personal insults. If you can't type anything without insulting me, don't bother typing it at all.

Comment

No, that building is still there. It is now the Hiroshima monument. Why is it still there? I point you to the film Armageddon for a fine example of basic explosive dynamics. In one of the scenes where they are discussing the best method to destroy the meteor, one of the scientists uses the analogy of a firecracker. Place it on your hand, you get a nasty burn. Hold it in your hand, it'll blow your hand off!

The same principle applies to buildings. Have an explosion on the outside of a building, it isn't contained, so the energy release dissipates. Inside the building, it is contained and causes much more damage. If this was a nuclear explosion, as you wish to think, then the reactor would not be there any more, neither would the reactor building. It was a hydrogen explosion, nothing more, despite what you would like it to be.

you make a logical mistake here because: it doesn't care if the explosion is nuclear or not only the "Power" of the explosion care.
you suggest that a nuclear explosion is stronger than a chemical but this is WRONG!
this is the prove you are wrong:

a chemical explosion can be stronger than a nuclear explosion.
you are just wrong... watch fukushima reactor 1 and 2 and 3 these explosions are chemical!
much different to reactor 4 explosion! in 1-3 there is no "mushroom"

also a hydrogen explosion can be stronger than a nuclear one! but your nativity think: nuclear is stronger than chemical.. this is just wrong!

reactor 4 was a tiny small nuclear explosion and not a hydrogen explosion. with a hydrogen explosion you never get a ""mushroom""

"If this was a nuclear explosion, as you wish to think, then the reactor would not be there any more"

this is just stupidness! its the "energy" nuclear do not mean more energy than chemical! you can build a smal nuke and a smaler nuke and this was the smalest nuke but hey dump people can not compare the hydrogen explosion from reactor 1-3 to reactor 4 "mushroom"

just test it by your own hydrogen never NEVER makes a "Mushroom"

you can watch this on youtube! yes even you can learn this from youtube!

"this is just wrong the AP1000 is not save the first 72hours because the passiv cooling solution can not backup the first 32minutes." I can't see anything on the wiki page about this claim. Wikipedia does say this: "In the AP1000, Westinghouse's Passive Core Cooling System uses multiple explosively-operated and DC operated valves which must operate within the first 30 minutes. This is designed to happen even if the reactor operators take no action."

LOL you are to stupid to read: "must operate within the first 30 minutes." this means no they do not operate within the first 30 minutes and because of this the security system FAIL completely!

Face it, you don't know what you're talking about and are relying on questionable, and to some extent, ignorant, sources to get your information. I'm relying on knowledgeable, peer reviewed, sources. Scientific and engineering publications that don't rely on the emotional and unfounded accusations of ignorant people.

LOL you can't make a different between a hydrogen explosion (watch it on youtube!) and a mushroom nuclear explosion!
also you make the stupidness of all conclusion like: nuclear explosion is stronger than chemical this is just BULLSHIT! chemical can serve more "energy" than a nuke!

you talk about "emotional" but your nuclear fanboyism stinks to the sky!

my video also prove your "nuclear-fanboy" sources wrong and prove they LIE! but yes you can't watch the video because its "German" LOL

Comment

Isn't it funny that a merely 60 Kg of uranium on the Hiroshima bomb released an amount of energy equivalent to 15 kilotons of TNT? Do you even have a basic insight of how nuclear fission works? Hydrogen bombs are nuclear bombs, but those release energy by means of nuclear fusion, not nuclear fission. Per mass, nuclear reactions have much much more energy potential than compared to chemical ones. Starting a nuclear explotion requires you getting the reactant to a critical mass point very fast, which requires a lot of energy. Hiroshima bombs had more chemical explosives by mass to do this part than the nuclear shit that was supposed to light up. Now i dare you to put what i have said into perpective, as i don't want to explain this furthermore, and stop being such a smart-ass.

(Though now i think what you refer as hydrogen explotions is the literal meaning of it, not the nucler kind, my point holds still, no way a nuclear explotion could've happened at fukushima)

Comment

Isn't it funny that a merely 60 Kg of uranium on the Hiroshima bomb released an amount of energy equivalent to 15 kilotons of TNT? Do you even have a basic insight of how nuclear fission works? Hydrogen bombs are nuclear bombs, but those release energy by means of nuclear fusion, not nuclear fission. Per mass, nuclear reactions have much much more energy potential than compared to chemical ones. Starting a nuclear explotion requires you getting the reactant to a critical mass point very fast, which requires a lot of energy. Hiroshima bombs had more chemical explosives by mass to do this part than the nuclear shit that was supposed to light up. Now i dare you to put what i have said into perpective, as i don't want to explain this furthermore, and stop being such a smart-ass.

(Though now i think what you refer as hydrogen explotions is the literal meaning of it, not the nucler kind, my point holds still, no way a nuclear explotion could've happened at fukushima)

o man if i want to write fission bomb then i write it.

a hydrogen gas bomb is a chemical bomb oxidation with the oxygen in the air.

Comment

Any large explosion can cause a mushroom cloud, there is nothing special about nuclear explosions that cause it. Nothing except their power.

A mushroom cloud is caused by the high temperatures at the center of the explosion, which causes the air to rise up until it begins cooling and starts spreading out at the top.

And there's no reason having particles or a clean explosion means anything either. It just means a dirty explosion set something on fire, or otherwise created particulates in some manner.

It's possible that the material coming out of there was radioactive (just like a normal fire could spread anything it burns, including radioactive material) but the idea that the explosion itself was nuclear is pretty laughable.

this guy pointed out in this video that at minimum 50% of the energy in the explosion was based nuclear and not chemical!

the same guy prove the new US American nuclear power reactor wrong: "Arnold "Arnie" Gundersen [...]a former nuclear power industry executive [...]who has questioned the safety of the Westinghouse AP1000"

Comment

You do know that the fuel in the cooling pond is arranged so that even under the most optimum conditions, it will never become critical. Conditions in the cooling pond were not optimum.

You have no idea about energy density do you? A chemical explosion being stronger than a nuclear explosion? LOL! It all depends on how much explosive you have. To have an explosion of the same 'strength' as Hiroshima, you would need a block of dynamite 20m long by 20m wide by 20m high. The 'pit' in Little Boy was about 1m in diameter.

Hydrogen burning, which is what those explosions were (ever put a lit splint into a test tube of hydrogen at school and get a pop? That's what happened here, but on a bigger scale), releases 121 MJ (million joules) per kg. Little Boy released between 54 and 75 TJ according to wikipedia and that was only 600-800milligrams of uranium (again, according to wikipedia).

So, which explosion is bigger again?

Oh, sorry, these are FACTS. You don't do FACTS do you?

Comment

you just claimed it the other way around. this is exactly my point! not your point!
your point is: the explosion is small means its not nuclear.
and this is just bullshit! you can build a smaller nuclear explosion than a chemical one.
only stupid people think nuclear is "Bigger" explosion.

Wikipedia: "In nuclear engineering, an assembly is prompt critical if for each nuclear fission event, one or more of the immediate or prompt neutrons released causes an additional fission event. This causes a rapid, exponential increase in the number of fission events. Prompt criticality is a special case of supercriticality."

also: "With the exception of research and experimental reactors, only a small number of reactor accidents are thought to have achieved prompt criticality, for example Chernobyl #4, the U.S. Army's SL-1, and Soviet submarine K-431. In all these examples the uncontrolled surge in power was sufficient to cause an explosion that destroyed each reactor and released radioactive fission products into the atmosphere."

and:
"It has been argued that the explosion at Fukushima Dai-ichi #3 may have also involved a prompt criticality, either before or immediately after the hydrogen explosion. Nuclear engineer Arnie Gunderson has suggested that the detonation wave visible from the explosion videos is evidence that a more energetic reaction than a hydrogen explosion was involved [1]."

Hydrogen burning, which is what those explosions were (ever put a lit splint into a test tube of hydrogen at school and get a pop? That's what happened here, but on a bigger scale), releases 121 MJ (million joules) per kg. Little Boy released between 54 and 75 TJ according to wikipedia and that was only 600-800milligrams of uranium (again, according to wikipedia).
So, which explosion is bigger again?
Oh, sorry, these are FACTS. You don't do FACTS do you?

LOL you just talk bullshit really fact is: reactor 1 and 2 and 3 do have a hydrogen explosion watch the video BIG different and reactor 4 do have an explosion with a much greater blast and much different in "color" i ask you why?

the answer given in my video is: the MOX fuel become Prompt_critical and explode and gets at minimum 50% of the energy out of nuclear atom splitting.